Coordi-nations
Network sovereignty through voluntary association and mutual support, creating alternatives to hierarchical organizations
Context
Traditional hierarchical organizations struggle to address challenges that transcend geographic boundaries or require coordination across diverse communities. Meanwhile, existing network state concepts prioritize exit strategies and competition with traditional institutions rather than collaboration and mutual support. Organizations seeking to coordinate at scale face a choice between rigid hierarchical control that stifles innovation or loose networks that lack coherence and sustainability.
This pattern applies when:
- Communities with aligned values seek to coordinate action across geographic or organizational boundaries
- Traditional hierarchical structures create bottlenecks or limit participation in decision-making
- Multiple autonomous groups need infrastructure for resource sharing and collective action
- Organizations want to maintain local autonomy while benefiting from network effects
- There’s a need for new forms of sovereignty that complement rather than replace existing institutions
Challenges
Organizations attempting large-scale coordination face several interconnected challenges:
Identity and Purpose Confusion: Networks often struggle to articulate their value proposition clearly, appearing as neither traditional organizations nor pure technology platforms. This confusion manifests in contradictory stakeholder perceptions and muddled communications that undermine credibility.
Sustainable Coordination Funding: While direct service delivery attracts funding from both traditional philanthropy and Web3 ecosystems, the infrastructure work of coordination—facilitating connections, maintaining relationships, enabling collaboration—lacks established funding models. This creates a “coordination value gap” where essential connective work goes unsupported.
Balancing Autonomy with Coherence: Networks must navigate the tension between maintaining coherent identity and direction while preserving the autonomy of member communities. Too much central control stifles innovation and local adaptation; too little creates fragmentation and inefficiency.
Cross-Community Knowledge Gaps: Different communities bring vastly different knowledge bases, communication styles, and cultural contexts. Technical discussions exclude non-technical partners while community development conversations fail to engage those seeking technological innovation.
Scale and Trust Limitations: Coordination mechanisms that work well in small, high-trust networks often break down at larger scales. As networks grow beyond Dunbar’s number (~150 people), maintaining trust and coherent action becomes exponentially more difficult.
Solution Framework
Coordi-nations represent voluntary interwoven networks of communities with aligned values that operate through participatory governance and mutualism. Unlike traditional organizations bounded by geography or formal membership, coordi-nations create network sovereignty through voluntary association and interdependence.
Seven-Step Formation Process
The coordi-nations framework, theorized by Primavera de Filippi and Jessy Kate Schingler, provides a developmental pathway:
-
Build Kinship: Communities form bonds through shared values and vision rather than geographic proximity or formal structures. This creates the foundation of trust necessary for voluntary coordination.
-
Identify Resonant Communities: Groups discover others with similar “pattern integrity”—shared approaches to organizing, decision-making, and value creation. Recognition of alignment happens through practice rather than abstract principles.
-
Develop Mutual Support: Communities create mechanisms for reciprocal aid, knowledge sharing, and resource circulation. Support flows multidirectionally based on needs and capabilities rather than hierarchical obligations.
-
Create Collective Identity: The act of naming catalyzes group formation. A shared identity emerges that encompasses diversity while maintaining coherence—not replacing local identities but adding a network layer.
-
Pool Resources: Communities develop participatory mechanisms for collective resource management. This includes not just financial resources but knowledge, relationships, infrastructure, and capacities.
-
Organize for Collective Action: The network develops capacity for coordinated action beyond internal operations. This might include advocacy, service delivery, or system transformation at scales individual communities couldn’t achieve.
-
Increase Interdependence: Communities deepen connections through various forms of interweaving—shared infrastructure, cross-ownership structures, integrated decision-making processes, and mutual accountability.
Key Design Principles
Mutualism Over Extraction: Coordi-nations prioritize reciprocal benefit and collective value creation rather than competitive advantage or value extraction. Resources and benefits circulate through the network rather than accumulating at nodes of power.
Sovereignty Through Interdependence: Unlike network states that seek independence through exit, coordi-nations create sovereignty through deepening interdependence. Autonomy comes not from isolation but from the strength of mutual support networks.
Symbiotic Institutional Relationships: Coordi-nations work alongside existing institutions rather than seeking to replace them. They create new layers of sovereignty for functions poorly served by geographic or hierarchical boundaries while respecting existing structures.
Emergent Rather Than Imposed Structure: Governance structures emerge from actual patterns of collaboration and need rather than being designed top-down. Form follows function as communities discover what coordination mechanisms serve their collective purposes.
Implementation Considerations
Starting Conditions
Successful coordi-nations typically emerge from:
- Existing communities with established trust and shared values
- Concrete collaboration needs that transcend individual community capacity
- Leadership willing to prioritize collective benefit over organizational control
- Patient funding that values coordination infrastructure as much as direct service delivery
Governance Evolution
The transformation from traditional organization to coordi-nation often follows a pattern:
- Initial attempts at traditional approaches (products, services, hierarchical structures)
- Recognition that value lies in coordination rather than production
- Experimental governance changes to enable distributed decision-making
- Formalization of network structures that maintain local autonomy
- Development of sustainable resource-sharing mechanisms
Common Implementation Challenges
The Inclusion Paradox: Attempts to make all activities maximally inclusive can accidentally exclude those seeking specialized engagement. Solution: Allow self-selection into different types and depths of participation rather than forcing universal involvement.
Sustainable Economics: Lacking established funding models for coordination work, networks often struggle to maintain infrastructure. Solution: Develop diverse revenue streams, advocate for coordination as fundable public good, experiment with Web3 mechanisms for value circulation.
Technical Accessibility: Blockchain and Web3 tools can create barriers for non-technical communities. Solution: Prioritize human relationships over technological sophistication, use familiar tools where possible, provide bridges between technical and non-technical participants.
Pace of Development: Full coordi-nation development typically requires 6-18 months minimum, not weeks. Solution: Set realistic timelines, celebrate incremental progress, maintain long-term vision while addressing immediate needs.
Practical Tools and Mechanisms
- Cells: Autonomous operational teams within the network that maintain their own governance while coordinating with others
- Gatherings: Structured yet emergent spaces for cross-community relationship building and co-creation
- Local Nodes: Physical and social anchors that connect global protocols with local communities
- Shared Infrastructure: Communication platforms, decision-making tools, and resource management systems accessible to all network members
- Pattern Libraries: Documentation of successful coordination approaches that can be adapted across different contexts
Examples & Case Studies
All In For Sport: From DAO to Coordi-nation
All In For Sport transformed from an NFT-based funding project into a coordi-nation supporting grassroots sports organizations. Through participation in the Reimagining Power Project (2024-2025), they discovered their value lay not in products but in coordination infrastructure.
The transformation included:
- Six gatherings connecting 111 participants from Web3 and sports communities
- Governance proposal (AIFSIP-04) formalizing separation of community stewardship from operational execution
- Partnerships with organizations like Women Win and selection for IOC Tech365 initiative
- Discovery that coordination creates value but lacks sustainable funding models
Key learning: “In trying to be maximally inclusive, we sometimes became accidentally exclusive to those seeking more specialized discussions.”
Green Pill Network: Distributed Regenerative Finance
The Green Pill Network demonstrates coordi-nations principles through its network of local chapters focused on regenerative finance. Each chapter maintains autonomy while benefiting from shared resources, knowledge, and identity. The network has grown organically through pattern replication rather than central planning.
References
Related Patterns
- Cells: Autonomous teams form the operational units within coordi-nations, implementing the principle of distributed execution within aligned networks
- local-nodes: Physical and social bridges between global coordi-nation protocols and specific geographic communities
- Gatherings: Structured spaces for building relationships and shared understanding across diverse communities within the coordi-nation
- Fractal Networks: Self-similar organizational structures that enable coordi-nations to scale while maintaining coherence
Theoretical Foundations
- Primavera de Filippi & Jessy Kate Schingler - “Coordi-nations: A New Institutional Structure for Global Cooperation” (2023)
- Network sovereignty theory and post-Westphalian governance models
- Elinor Ostrom’s work on polycentric governance and common pool resources
- Manuel Castells’ network society theory, particularly concepts of “switchers” and “programmers”
Contrasting Approaches
- Network States (Balaji Srinivasan): Exit-based sovereignty through technological independence
- Traditional Hierarchies: Geographic and formal membership boundaries with centralized control
- Pure Networks: Lack coordination mechanisms for collective action and resource sharing
Implementation Resources
- SuperBenefit DAO Primitives Framework for governance structures
- All In For Sport case study documentation
- Blockchaingov research on coordi-nations implementation
- “Overthrowing the Network State” podcast series
Further Reading
- Coordination failures and public goods funding
- Polycentric governance in digital contexts
- Commons-based peer production models
- Regenerative economics and mutual aid networks